Stupid Iranian mullahs don't know when they're beaten

I saw this today on Breitbart News.

Here, unedited, are the first two paragraphs of the BN article.

President Donald Trump is “prepared to unleash hell” if Iran refuses to “come to a deal,” the White House warned Wednesday, cautioning that the regime “should not miscalculate again” after suffering devastating battlefield losses, as U.S. forces — including Marines and elements of the 82nd Airborne Division — deploy to the Middle East to support combat operations against Iran.

Speaking at a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president remains willing to listen as talks with Tehran continue, but stressed the regime is now being given a final opportunity to accept the reality of its battlefield defeat and come to terms.

Let me see if I've got this straight. President Trump, who not long ago said the American-Israeli war on Iran would be over when he "feels" that it's over, now has that feeling. He's saying the good guys (that's us!) have won. Right? So he's declaring victory (see WWW 23/3/26) and we can get back to Making America Great Again! Right?

Forgive me, but I don't hear anyone else saying it's all over. The mad mullahs of Tehran certainly aren't saying so, and keep lobbing missiles into Israel and other neighbouring countries. The Israelis aren't sayinig so and are pushing an actual boot-on-the-ground invasion of Lebanon. America's allies (read: fairweather friends) aren't saying so. 

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. The mullahs don't get that they've lost, and, may the Donald forgive me, I don't see that we've won. That's why I haven't said anything much for the last few days. I'm waiting for something conclusive to conclude the conclusion of an ill-advised war. Dear reader, if you hear any such thing, please let me know!

Can you say "stalemate", boys 'n' girls?

Call me a traitor if you like, but it has to be said that the US of A has form for starting wars which it can't finish. Before Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam we can point all the way back to the War of 1812, which then POTUS James Madison said would be "only a matter of marching", all over in a month or so. Does this sound familiar?

Since the outcome of the War of 1812 is barely mentioned in US schools nowadays, let us review how Madison's little excursion turned out. There was fighting, mostly on the Canadian (British, in those days) side of the Great Lakes. The Royal Navy attacked and burned the American capital, causing Dolly Madison to pack up her dishes and flee the White House. The Americans won the final battle (New Orleans) nearly a month after a truce had been agreed. The borders of the US of A remained as they had been ante bellum. Much treasure and blood was expended, but nothing was gained.

Walt predicts a similar outcome for the American-Israeli war on Iran. 

Again, call me a traitor if you like, but I don't see a lot of winning going on here! The Israelis are said to have invaded Lebanon, but that's a sideshow. The Big Show is Iran. The mission (so far as we can understand it) is to (a) terminate the Chief Mullah and so (b) to effect the overthrow of the Islamist theocracy, while also (c) ensuring that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and (d) the supply of Big Oil would be secure forever more, Or (e) all of the above.

Three weeks in, after the loss of dozens of American lives and expenditure of many millions of dollars, as nearly as Walt can see, only (a) has been accomplished. So what? The same gang of mullahs may be hiding behind a cardboard cutout of the Son-of-the-Mullah, but they're still in control. A few oil tankers are getting through the Strait of Hormuz, but the US is clearly incapable of keeping that channel oopen to the point where President Trump is almost screaming "A little help here!?!?" at America's fair weather friends.

I can't see any favourable outcome to this conflict. POTUS says it'll be over when he thinks it's over, but when will that be? Seems to me the stage is being set for a declaration of victory and a "withdrawal" under cover of a cease-fire which will be touted as a Big Win, just like that over Hamas a few months ago.

Many Americans have been killed. US military bases in the Gulf are burning. America's so-called allies are running for diplomatic cover. The only "winning" is being done by the Israelis, who are finishing what they couldn't do in 1967. Clearly the US of A has lost control of a war that will not end until Iran says so. 

Any realist has to call the situation a strategic stalemate, with intense air campaigns failing to force capitulation or halt Iranian retaliations. While initial strikes damaged infrastructure, Iran has continued targeting energy routes in the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a protracted conflict with no clear endgame. Iran has successfully targeted global energy security, creating a protracted war.

The stalemate is causing major global disruptions, with oil prices rising over $100/bbl and increasing economic uncertainty in other regions, notes. It's hard to see how this ends except in a "draw" where both sides declare victory, or settle into a low-level, long-term confrontation that could reshape the region. Or not.

I would dearly love to be wrong. I would like to see the people of Iran liberated from the yoke of Islamist oppression. I have similar hopes for the people of Venezuela and (even more so) the people of Cuba. But we're not there yet... are we...

VIDEO: Michael Matt calls out Christian Zionists over Iran war

Call me a Mugwump if you want [OK, you're a mugwump! Ed.] but I'm not totally on board with the war against the Mad Mullahs of Iran. 

There can be no doubt that the Middle East and the world in general would be a better and safer place if the Islamic theocracy were overthrown. But, as I suggeested yesterday, I don't see any clear plan for replacing the arch-Muslim dictators with a more tractable regime. And I certainly don't want to see another debacle like Iran or Afghanistan. 

One thing's for sure. I reject the argument of the Christian Zionists that this war, fomented by the Israelis (read: Jews) is all part of God's plan to establish His kingdom on Earth. For those who haven't heard, Christian Zionism is a theological and political movement wherein Christians support the state of Israel and the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land, believing this fulfills biblical prophecy regarding the End Times. 

Rooted in 17th-century Puritan thought, this ideology sees modern Israel as a divine miracle. No traditional Catholic can believe that, as Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant newspaper says in an e-mail received here today, as follows:

Re: War in Iran – regardless of the nonsense Senator Ted Cruzmissile learned in Sunday school, Bibi’s manmade messiah has no legitimate Biblical foundation. Not to make this all about Sen. Lindsey Graham, but the warmongering Zionists are trying to blasphemously show Jesus Christ how it’s done. 

What they’re essentially doing now is laying claim to the temporal power the Sanhedrin wanted the first time around. Charlie Kirk was right! Their kingdom is most definitely of this world! So, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran…and any other country that gets in the way of Israel’s nuclear-armed messianism.

Antisemitic? Not at all! Orthodox Jews reject Israel’s militarized messiah out of hand. They consider it heresy, which is why I heavily lean on their testimony in this week’s Underground [the video below. Ed.]. 

Traditional Jews and Traditional Roman Catholics know their scripture, whereas Zionists rewrite it to accommodate their political aspirations. From Iraq to Gaza and from Syria to Iran, this is about a human hack for a divine curse... They base their claims on a religious right to the land of Israel, as promised to Abraham, heretically insisting that once Jews repossess Israel, this will bring about the millennial rule of Christ on Earth for 1000 years. 

What are they missing? Almighty God keeps His promises! So, just as Adam forfeited Paradise on Earth by his sin – and we forfeit God’s promised heavenly Jerusalem through mortal sin – so too the Jews forfeited the Promised Land by breaking the covenant with God.

In Deuteronomy 28:63-64 (DRV), Moses warns them "the Lord shall rejoice destroying you and bringing you to nought, so that you shall be taken away from the land... The Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the farthest parts of the earth to the ends thereof." 

That is the judgment of God Himself, and it was reaffirmed in no uncertain terms by His only begotten Son. Any attempt to circumvent it on the part of Zionists – Christian or otherwise – is blasphemy. 

In this latest edition of The Remnant Underground, Mr Matt takes a deep dive into the biblical foundations of this fundamentally Christian reality: No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a Christian Zionist. Listen and learn.

I hate to be "that guy" but... about the US, Israel and Armageddon

We don't like to repost our own stuff but as the American-Israel war on Iran enters its fourth day we can't help but think that we've seen this movie before. Or maybe this is just the latest version of the long-running franchise. 

Let's rewind to "Scrapping the Iran deal: another milepost on the road to Armageddon", WWW 10/5/18. To save you clicking on the link [but go ahead if you want! Ed.], the main point of that post was that President Trump was right to scrap the Obama deal with Iran. 

He did that because "Iran is a danger to us, to our allies, to freedom. We stand alongside you in ending the dangerous appeasement of Iran and making all and any action required to stop Iran going nuclear, help its people, halt its spreading of terror and achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and among all peoples and nations."

Inevitably, the Democrats, liberals and one-worlders disagreed with Mr Trump. The Prez called the decision to screap the Iran deal "misguided". The deal was negotiated on his watch and he took credit for it, as befits the winner of a Nobel Peace. What else would he say.

Walt wrote: What the doves never explained was why, if the Iran deal was such a great game-changer, peace didn't break out in the Middle East the minute it was signed. The object was to prevent Iran from developing a nuculer (giving it the American pronunciation) weapon, and stop them from mucking around in Syria and other Muslim civil wars -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, etc etc -- by bringing them (Iran) back into the world economic community. So how did that work out?

The Prez and all the other one-world, appease-the-Muslim wienies have responded to POTUS' decision to scrap the Iran nuke deal by saying that his decision has moved us closer than ever to a full-scale war, yea a veritable nuclear holocaust! So if the Middle East explodes, it's all Trump's fault. Right?

Errr, no. My point was that we were on the road to Armageddon well before the Iran deal! See "3 portents of the coming Armageddon", WWW 26/8/14. Scrapping the deal makes no difference other than to immanentize the eschaton. 

The years passed. The Biden interregnum brought was marked by the ignominious retreat from Afghanistan and other triumphs of Democratic diplomacy. The Iranians, emboldened by the defeat of the Trumpster, carried on with their nuclear program and with raising Islamic terrorist hell in the Middle East and around the world.

Now the Donald is back in the White House and can see that the mad mullahs who rule Iran are just as keen as ever on destroying the "Zionist entity" to their south -- note the direction: it's important! -- and imposing their brand of the Religion of Peace(TM), complete with Sharia Law, on the Middle East and however much more of the world the craven Western powers allow.

Time now to explain why we're naming this version of the old movie "The Road to Armageddon". Here's a Biblical (DRV) reference: "And the Lord saidto me: From the north shall an evil break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land. Jeremias 1:14 (DRV). 

Now take a look at a map of the Middle East.  If the "families of the kingdoms of the north" come once again to attack the gates of Jerusalem (1:15), the road they will take goes right past... or through... a little place called Megiddo, indicated with the red marker on the map..

That's "Megiddo" as in "Mount Megiddo", which is not really a mountain but a "tell", a city built on top of a city built on top of another city, and so on for 5000 years. During the Bronze Age, Megiddo was an important Canaanite city-state. During the Iron Age, it was a royal city in the Kingdom of Israel.

Megiddo is mentioned only once in the New Testament of the Bible, but has sixteen mentions in the Old Testament, notably in Chapters 4 and 5 of the book of Judges.

Among the judges, the only female, and the only one to be called a prophet is Deborah (aka Debbora), a decisive figure in the defeat of the Canaanites. This is a victory told in two accounts, a prose narrative in Judges 4 and a poem, known as the Song of Deborah, in Judges 5. At Judges 4:6 "she sent and called Barac...and said to him: The Lord God of Israel hath commanded thee: Go, and lead an army." 

And so he did. In the 15th century B.C., God gave the victory at the battle of Megiddo (Judges 5:19) through those who are willing to follow His lead. 

For Christians the word Megiddo is synonymous with the end of the world as mentioned in the Apocalypse of Saint John the Apostle (aka Revelation) 16:16. Other battles, besides the one mentioned in Judges, were fought at Megiddo, as recently as World War I. 

"Har-Megiddo" (Hebrew for the "mount" of "mountain" of Megiddo) or Armageddon, will be the site of the Final Battle.

At that time, according to Apocalypse 6:1-8 (DRV), God will release onto the world four horsemen -- the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

The Four Horsemen appear with the opening of the first four of the seven seals that bring forth the cataclysm of the Apocalypse. 

The first horseman, a conqueror with a bow and crown, rides a white horse.

The second horseman is given a great sword and rides a red horse, symbolizing war and bloodshed.

The third carries a balance scale, rides a black horse, and symbolizes famine 

The fourth horseman rides a pale horse and is identified as Death.

It's hard to look at the events unfolding right now without wondering if the Final Battle has not begun. I'm afraid to repeat my usual "Stay tuned."

Hug-a-Muslim Day: Pope reaches out to Islamic leaders

Since it's National Hug-a-Muslim Day (in Canada, at least) -- see previous post -- Walt thinks it's appropriate to republish a cartoon commentary from the latest issue of The Remnant.

Click here to preview the January 31st issue of The Remnant, from which this was taken. The Remnant is the oldest Traditional Catholic newspaper in the world, and is available in hard copy and electronic formats. Tell them Walt sent ya!

Afghan family set to kill 10-year-old daughter after rape by mullah

Those who believe that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children by clerics should know about a story -- "Struggling to Keep Afghan Girl Safe After a Mullah Is Accused of Rape" -- by Rob Nordland, in yesterday's New York Times.

The nub of the story is the rape, last May, of a pre-pubescent girl, aged 10, by a mullah at the local mosque in Kunduz, a town in Afghanistan, where the victim had been attending Qu'ran recitation classes. The Muslim spiritual leader, Mohammad Amin, was arrested and confessed to having sex with the girl, but said he thought she was older, besides which he intended to marry her.

But that's not the main point of the story. The real crime here would have been perpetrated by the girl's family, had they succeeded in killing her, for... wait for it... bringing shame and dishonour on her family.

Most of the anger in Kunduz has been focused not on the mullah but on women’s activists and the shelter where the girl took refuge, which is one of seven operated across Afghanistan by Women for Afghan Women, an Afghan-run charity supported mainly by aid from the American government and private donors.

This past Tuesday, local cops removed the girl from the shelter, and returned her to her family, despite complaints from the women’s activists that she was likely to be killed. The head of the women's affairs office in Kunduz, Nederah Geyah, who campaigned actively to have the youngster protected from her family, resigned and moved to another part of Afghanistan.

Dr. Hassina Sarwari, the head of the shelter, was at one point driven into hiding by death threats from the girl’s family and other mullahs -- some of them Taliban, others on the government side -– and from pro-government militiamen. One of their claims was that the girl was actually 17, and thus of marriageable age, not 10.

Accompanying the Times article is a photo of Dr. Sarwari showing on her laptop one of the pictures of the victim she took in the hospital. The photos clearly show a pre-pubescent child, and the doctor said the girl weighed only 40 pounds. Few Afghans have birth records, and many do not know their precise ages. But the girl’s mother said she was 10, and a forensic examination in the hospital agreed, saying she had not yet started menstruating or developing secondary sexual characteristics.

The girl’s own testimony, and medical evidence, supported a rape so violent that it caused a fistula, or a break in the wall between the vagina and rectum, according to the police and the official bill of indictment. She bled so profusely after the attack that she was at one point in danger of losing her life because of a delay in getting medical care.

Ms Geyah told the reporter, "I went to the hospital when they brought her there. I was sitting next to her bed when I overheard her mother and aunt saying that her father was under tremendous pressure by the villagers to kill the girl because she had brought shame to them."

When Dr. Sarwari, a pediatrician, arrived to pick up the girl, a crowd of village elders from Alti Gumbad, the girl’s home village on the outskirts of the Kunduz, were gathered outside the hospital. Among them were the girl’s brothers, father and uncle. Inside the hospital, Dr. Sarwari encountered the girl’s aunt, who told her she had been ordered by her husband to sneak the girl out of the hospital and deliver her to the male relatives outside. They wanted to take the girl, kill her, and dump her in the river, the aunt said.

Dr. Sarwari found the girl’s mother holding her child’s hand, and both were weeping. The doctor quoted the mother as saying, "My daughter, may dust and soil protect you now. We will make you a bed of dust and soil. We will send you to the cemetery where you will be safe."

Muslim mothers often believe there is no choice but to kill rape victims, who are seen as unmarriageable and therefore a lifelong burden to their families, as well as a constant reminder of dishonour.

Dr. Sarwari has accused prosecutors and religious officials of siding with the accused rapist and ignoring the child’s plight. "There are a lot of powerful people behind the mullah," she told the Times. The girl’s family knows they cannot do anything to Amin, she said, but "the girl is easy. They can get to her. She’s their daughter." She said she feared the girl would either be killed, or forced to recant her accusations against the pederastic mullah.

This sad case makes a mockery of claims by the US and other governments that that Western aid and encouragement can make positive changes in the lives of Afghan women. In remote parts of Afghanistan, traditional customs are still stronger than modern law. Taliban insurgents and pro-government elements often make common cause in their hatred of progress in women’s rights.

Walt has said it before in commenting on a similar story -- see "Parents of raped 14-year-old mutilate Muslim cleric, say he should be 'punished even more severely'" -- and he'll say it again: They're savages there, one and all. Leave the benighted heathens to cutting off each other's body parts, killing their wives and daughters and whatever else seems "right" according to their "religion of peace"! And may Allah give them all the rewards they so richly deserve!